MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095363907 · doi:10.2527/jas.2008-1354

Effect of age on the behavioral and physiological responses of piglets to tail docking and ear notching1

2008· article· en· W2095363907 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie Torrey, Nicolas Devillers, Martin Lessard, C. Farmer, Tina M. Widowski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColostrumMedicineLitterBiologyAntibodyAnimal scienceImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neonatal piglets are often subject to potentially painful processing procedures such as tail docking and ear notching during the first few days after birth. However, these procedures may influence the development of suckling behavior and passive transfer of immunoglobulins, especially if done within the first day postpartum. The objective of this experiment was to compare the effects of processing piglets during the first 24 h versus at 3 d of age on suckling and pain-related behavior, the passive transfer of immunoglobulins, and growth. Six piglets per litter from 20 litters (n = 120 piglets) were used in a 3 x 2 complete block design. Piglets were weighed at birth and assigned to 1 of 3 treatments (balanced by birth weight): control (unmanipulated), sham processed (manually manipulated), and processed (tail docked and ear notched) at 1 of 2 ages (1 or 3 d of age). Vocalizations were recorded during the procedures, and piglets were observed after the procedures for pain-related behavior. Suckling behavior was observed for 6 h on each of d 1 to 4. Colostrum samples were collected after the birth of all piglets (before first suck), and blood samples were collected on d 5 to examine concentrations of immunoglobulins (IgA and IgG) and IGF-I. Body weights were measured at birth and on d 5 and 14. During the procedures, processed piglets, regardless of age, vocalized at a greater frequency (P < 0.001) and produced more high frequency calls (P = 0.016) than sham-processed piglets. All piglets on d 1 produced more high frequency calls than all piglets on d 3 (P = 0.047). Immediately after the procedures, sham-processed and processed piglets spent less time lying and more time standing than control piglets (P < 0.001), whereas processed piglets jammed their tail between their legs more than sham-processed or control piglets (P < 0.001). Lying, standing and tail posture were not influenced by age, nor were there age by treatment interactions. Piglets on d 1 trembled more than piglets on d 3 (P < 0.001), and this tended to be exacerbated by processing (P = 0.076). There was no effect of treatment or age of treatment on suckling behavior. Processed piglets had decreased IgG serum concentrations compared with sham-processed and control piglets (P = 0.029), although there was no interaction between treatment and age of treatment (P = 0.67). Whereas tail docking and ear notching do appear to result in short-term pain and modulated immune status, processing on d 1 appears neither better nor worse than processing on d 3.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.135
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations64
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207